The languages
of Persia, commonly called Iranian, form a separate family of the great Aryan
stock of languages which comprises, besides the Iranian idioms, Sanskrit (with
its daughters), Greek, Latin, Teutonic (with English), Slavonian, Letto-Lithuanian, Celtic, and all allied dialects. The Iranian idioms arrange
themselves under two heads: -

Iranian languages properly
so called.

Affiliated tongues.

The first
division comprises the ancient, mediaeval, and modern languages of Iran, which
includes Persia, Media, and Bactria, those lands which are styled in the
Zend-Avesta airyâo danhâvô, “Aryan countries.” We may class them as
follows: -

(a.)The East Iranian or Bactrian branch, extant only in the
two dialects in which the scanty fragments of the Parsi scriptures is written.
The more ancient of them may be called the " Gatha dialect,” because the
most extensive and important writings preserved in this peculiar idiom are the
so-called Gathas or hymns; the later idiom, in which most of the books of the
Zend-Avesta are written, may be called " ancient Bactrian,” or " the
classical Avesta language,” which was for many centuries the spoken and written
language of Bactria. The Bactrian languages seem to have been dying out in the
third century B.C., and they have left no daughters.

(b.) The West
Iranian languages, or those of Media and Persia. These are known to us during
the three periods Persia. These are known to us during the three periods of
antiquity, middle ages, and modern times, but only in the one dialect, which
has, at every period, served as the written language throughout the Iranian
provinces of the Persian empire. Several dialects are mentioned by
lexicographers, but we know very little about them.[1]
Of the ancient Persian a few documents are still extant in the cuneiform
inscriptions of the kings of the Achaemenian dynasty, found in the ruins of
Persepolis, on the rock of Behistun, near Hamedân, and some other places in
Persia. This language stands nearest to the two Bactrian dialects of the
Zend-Avesta, but exhibits some peculiarities; for instance, we find d used
instead of z, as adam, " I,” in the Avesta azem; dasta, “hand,”
in the Ayesta zasta. It is undoubtedly the mother of modern Persian, but
the differences between them are nevertheless great, and in reading and
interpreting the ancient Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Sanskrit and the
Avesta, although they be only sister languages, have proved more useful than
its daughter, the modern Persian. The chief cause of this difference between
ancient and modern Persian is the loss of nearly all the grammatical inflexions
of nouns and verbs, and the total disregard of gender, in modern Persian; while
in the ancient Persian, as written and spoken at the time of the Achaemenians
(B.C. 500-300), we still find a great many inflexions agreeing with those of
the Sanskrit, Avesta, and other ancient Aryan tongues. At what time the Persian
language, like the English, became simplified, and adapted for amalgamating
with foreign words, by the loss of its terminations, we cannot ascertain. But
there is every reason to suppose that this dissolution and absorption of
terminations, on account of their having become more or less unintelligible,
began before the Christian era, because in the later inscriptions of the
Achaemenians (B.C. 400), we find already some of the grammatical forms
confounded, which confusion we discover also in many parts of the Zend-Avesta.
No inscription in the vernacular Persian of the Arsacidans, the successors of
the Achaemenians, being extant, we cannot trace the gradual dissolution of the
terminations; and when we next meet with the vernacular, in the inscriptions of
the first two Sasanian monarchs, it appears in, the curiously mixed form of
Pahlavi, which gradually changes till about A.D. 300, when it differs but
little from the Pahlavi of the Parsi books, as we shall shortly see.

The second
chief division of the Iranian tongues comprises the affiliated languages, that
is to say, such as share in the chief peculiarities of this family, but differ
from it in many essential particulars. To this division we must refer Ossetic,
spoken by some small tribes in the Caucasus, but differing completely from
the other Caucasian languages;also Armenian and Afghanic (Pashtű).
After this brief notice of the Iranian languages in general, me shall
proceed to the more particular consideration of the languages of the
Zend-Avesta and other religious literature of the Parsis.

The original
language of the Parsi scriptures has usually been called Zend by European
scholars, but this name has never been generally admitted by Parsi scholars,
although it may have been accepted by a few on European authority, which is apt
to be treated with too much deference by Oriental minds. We shall see,
hereafter, that this application of the term Zend is quite inconsistent with
its general use in the Parsi books, and ought, therefore, to be discarded by
scholars who wish to prevent the propagation of error. At present we need only
observe that no name for the language of the Parsi scriptures has yet been
found in the Parsi books; but whenever the word Zend (zand) is used
alone, it is applied to some Pahlavi translation, commentary, or gloss; and
whenever the word Avesta (avistak) is used alone, it is applied to the
Parsi scriptures in their original language. The language of the Zend,
therefore, is Pahlavi, and this is a sufficient reason for not applying that
term to another language, with which its connection is probably slight. For
want of a better term, we may follow the example of most Parsi scholars in
using the term Avesta for the language of the Avesta; and to avoid confusion,
we must discard the word Zend altogetherwhenspeaking of
languages; although, for reasons given hereafter, we may still use Zend-Avesta
as a general term for the Parsi scriptures.

The general
character of the Avesta language, in both its dialects, is that of a highly
developed idiom. It is rich in inflexions, both of the verbs and nouns. In the
latter, where three numbers and eight cases can be distinguished, it agrees
almost completely with Vedic Sanskrit, and in the former it exhibits a greater
variety of forms than the classical Sanskrit. We find, besides, a multitude of
case in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin; but are now and then confounded, much less,
however, in the verbs than in the nouns, where the dissolution first began. The
crude form, or original uninflected state of the word, is often used instead of
the original inflected forms; thus, we find daęva, “demon, evil spirit,”
which is really the crude form of the word, employed as the instrumental
singular, which ought to be daęvęna, or at least daęva, and as
the nominative plural, which ought to be daęvonho or daęva. The
long vowels â and î are out of use in the nominative feminine, so
that the gender is not so easily recognized from the termination alone as in
Sanskrit; thus we have daęna, “creed, belief,” instead of daęna;
moreover, the forms of the dative and instrumental are often confounded,
especially in the plural. These deviations from the regular forms, and the
confusion of terminations, are far more frequent in the classical Avesta than
in the Gatha dialect, where the grammatical forms are, in most cases, quite
regular, Notwithstanding these symptoms of decay, the relationship of the
Avesta language to the most ancient Sanskrit, the so-called Vedic dialect,[2]
is as close as that of the different dialects of the Greek language (AEolic,
Ionic, Doric, or Attic) to each other. The languages of the sacred hymns of the
Brahmans, and of those of the Parsis, are only the two dialects of two separate
tribes of one and the same nation. As the Ionians, Dorians, AEtolians &c.
were different tribes of the Greek nation, whose general name was Hellenes, so
the ancient Brahmans and Parsis were two tribes of the nation, which is called Aryas
both in the classical Sanskrit. We find, besides, a multitude of compound words
of various kinds, and the sentences are joined together in an easy way, which
contributes largely to a ready understanding of the general sense of passages.
It is a genuine sister of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Gothic; but we find her
no longer in the prime of life, as she appears rather in her declining age. The
forms are not always kept strictly distinct from each other, as is the Veda and
Zend-Avesta; the former may be compared with’ he Ionians, and the latter with
the Dorians. The most striking feature perceptible when comparing both Avesta
dialects with Sanskrit is, that they are related closely to the Vedic form of
Sanskrit, but not to the classical. In verbal forms, especially moods and
tenses, the classical Sanskrit, though very rich in comparison with modern
languages, is much poorer than the more primitive dialect preserved in the
Vedas; thus it has lost various forms of the subjunctive mood, most tenses of
all moods except the indicative (the imperative and potential moods preserving
only the present tense), the manifold forms expressing the infinitive mood,[3]
&c. ; whereas all these forms are to be found in the Vedas, Zend-Avesta,
and Homeric Greek, in the greatest completeness. The syntactical structure in
Vedic Sanskrit and the Avesta is simple enough, and verbal forms are much more
frequently used than in classical Sanskrit. There can be no doubt that
classical Sanskrit was formed long after the separation of the Iranians from
the Hindus.

The differences
between Vedic Sanskrit and the Avesta language are very little in grammar, but
are chiefly of a phonetical and lexicographical nature, like the differences
between German and Dutch. There are certain regular changes of sounds, and
other phonetic peculiarities perceptible, knowledge of which enables the
philologist to convert anyAvesta word easily into a pure Sanskrit one.
The most remarkable changes are as follows :-

Initial s
in Sanskrit is changed in the Avesta into h; thus soma (the
sacred juice used by the Brahmans) = haoma; sama, “together, the
same,” = hama; sa, “that, he,” = ha; sach, “tofollow,”
(Lat. sequi) = hach. Inthe middle of a word the same change
takes place, as in asu, “life,” = anhu; except now and then in
the last syllable, as in Av. yazaęsha, " thou shalt worship,” where
sh is preserved. At the end of a word sh remains unless preceded
by a, in which case the termination ash is changed into o, except when followed
by the enclitic conjunction cha, when the sibilant is preserved; thus asura-s
“living,” becomes ahurô, instead of ahurash, but we find ahurashcha,"
and the living.”

In place of
Sanskrit rit, besides the regular change into aret,[4]we find ash as an equivalent in the Avesta, as in mashya, “man,”
= S. martya (Lat. mortalis, Gr. brotos); asha, “right,
true,” = S. rita.

Instead of
Sanskrit sv the Avesta has a peculiar guttural aspirate represented by q,
and corresponding in sound probably to qu in Latin and khw in
Persian, as in qafna, "sleep,” = S. svapna (Lat. somnus, Gr
. hypnos, Pers. khwab).

These
are the most remarkable phonetic differences between Sanskrit and Avesta words.
By attending to them it is very easy to find the Sanskrit word corresponding to
one in the Avesta, and we can thus discover a large number of words and forms
similar to those in the Vedas. There are, of course, now and then (as is always
the case in the dialects of every language) peculiar words to be found in the
Avesta, but these are always traceable to Sanskrit roots.

A comparison of
the grammatical forms in the Avesta and Sanskrit can be dispensed with. They
are so very similar, even when not quite identical, that they are readily
recognized by any one who has a slight knowledge of Sanskrit. The
strongest proof of the original identity of Sanskrit and Avesta grammatical
forms is their harmony even in irregularities. Thus, for instance, the
‘deviations of the pronominal declension from that of the nouns are the same in
both languages, as ahmâi, “to him,” = S. asmâi; kahmâi, " to
whom,” = S. kasmâi ; yaęshâm, " of whom” (pl.), = S. yeshâm. Also
in the declension of irregular nouns we find span, "dog,"
= S. shvan,[5] sing. nom.
spâ = S. shvâ, acc. spânem = S. shvânam, dat. sűnę
= S. shune, gen. suno = S. shunas, pl. nom. spânô = S.
shvanâs, gen. sunâm = S. shunâm ; likewise pathan, “path,” =
S. pathin, sing. nom. paňta = S. paňthas, inst. path
= S. pathâ, pl. nom. paňtânô = S. panthânas acc. pathô = S. pathas,
gen. pathâm = S. pathâm.

The extremely
close affinity of the Avesta language to Vedic Sanskrit can be best seen from
some forms of the present tense, in which the classical Sanskrit differs from
the Vedic. Compare, for instance, Av. kerenaomi, "I make,” with
Ved. krinomi and S. karomi ; Av. jamaiti, " he goes,"
with Ved. gamati and S. gachchhati ; Av. gerewnami, " I
take,” with Ved. gribhnâmi and S. grihnâmi.

With
regard to the differences between the two dialects of the Avesta, the language
of the Gbthas and the classical or ordinary Avesta, we can here only discuss
their relationship to each other in a general way. The chief question is,
whether they represent the same language at two different periods of time, or
whether they are two contemporary dialects, spoken in two different provinces
of the ancient Bactrian empire. Our knowledge of the dialects of the Iranian
languages and the periods of their development, previous to the Christian era,
is so limited, that it is extremely difficult to decide this question in a
satisfactory manner.

The differences
between these two dialects are both of a phonetical and grammatical nature.
Were the deviations merely of the former kind, we should be fully entitled to
ascribe them to two different ways of pronouncing certain vowels and
consonants, as generally happens in different districts with nations speaking
the same language; but should we discover in one dialect fuller and more
ancient forms, and in the other evidently later and more contracted ones, then
the difference between the Gatha language and the ordinary Avesta must be
ascribed to their being written at different periods.

The phonetical
differences of the Gatha language from that of the other books are, at a first
glance, so considerable as to induce one to trace them to different localities
of the same country, and not to different ages. But on closer inquiry we find
that several of these phonetical peculiarities, such as the constant
lengthening of’ final vowels, and the severing of one syllable into two (as of
the nom. pl. n. of the relative pronoun ya into čeâ), are
attributable to the original chanting of the Gathas and other shorter pieces,
constituting the older Yasna, and are not to be traced to dialectical
differences. These writings are the most important and holiest prayers used in
the Zoroastrian divine service, and the way of chanting them was, very likely,
analogous to that in which the Brahmans (originally near relations of the
Parsis) used to chant the verses of the Sâmaveda at the time of solemn
sacrifices, and which is kept up to this day on such occasions. On hearing a
Sâmaveda priest chant some verses of this Veda, one notices that he lengthens
the final vowels of the words, even when they are short. In Sanskrit, where the
grammar was fixed by rules, the texts were not altered according to the
mode of chanting them; while in the Avesta, where nothing regarding the grammar
and pronunciation was settled, these peculiarities produced by chanting the
Gathas and some other pieces crept into the manuscripts, which were generally
written from memory only, as is still often the case. Besides these
phonetical changes which can be explained as the result of chanting, there are
a few other changes of vowels, such as that of a final ô or initial a
into ē, as in kē = kô, " who ? " and ēmavat
= amavat, " strong; " also some changes of consonants, as
that of t into s in stavas = stavat, “praising,”
and the softening of harsh consonants, as in âdrēng = athras (acc.
pl. of âtar, "fire"). These deviations are suggestive of
dialectical differences, but they are of no great importance, and no great
weight can be attached to them; they are merely such differences as might exist
between the idioms of neighboring towns in the same district. That these
peculiarities, notwithstanding their insignificance, have been preserved so
well, and not been dissolved and changed into the current Bactrian language,
which is preserved in the largest portion of the Zend-Avesta, indicates the
great reverence in which these hymns mere held by the Zoroastrians. Considering
that the Gathas contain the undoubted teaching of Zarathushtra himself (without
adverting to other reasons), we do not hesitate to believe that the peculiar
language used in the Gathas was the dialect of his own town or district.

As to
grammatical forms, the Gatha dialect exhibits not a few deviations from the
ordinary Avesta language. Most of these differences evidently represent a more
primitive state of the Bactrian language, nearer to its Aryan source; but some
might be considered as merely dialectical peculiarities. The genitive singular
of masculine nouns in a ends, nearly throughout the Gathas, in ahyâ, which
corresponds exactly with the Sanskrit genitive termination asya, while
in the ordinary Avesta we always find ahe, apparently a
contraction of ahya, thus Gath. dačvahya, "of a demon,” =
Av. dačvahe = S. devasya. Again, the first pers. sing. Imperative,
expressing intention or volition, requires only the termination a or ai
in the Gathas whereas in the ordinary Avesta the derived termination ani
prevails, and this is also used in Sanskrit; the usual infinitive formation in
the Gathas is that in dyai which is also extremely frequent in the Vedic
dialect, while it is nearly unknown in the ordinary Avesta, and wholly so in
classical Sanskrit. In the pronouns, especially, the language of the Gathas
exhibits more ancient forms than we find in any other part of the Zend-Avesta,
as for example maibyâ, "to me,” which ancient form, agreeing so
well with Sans. mahyam and Lat. mihi, is nowhere to be found in
the ordinary Avesta ; observe also mahyâ, m. maqyâo, f. "of
my,” &c. The frequent use of the enclitic pronominal particles î, îm,
hîm, &c. (which is a peculiar feature of the Vedic dialect,
distinguishing it from classical Sanskrit), and the great freedom with which
prepositions are separated from their verbs (a chief characteristic of Vedic
Sanskrit and Homeric Greek), indicate a more ancient stage of language in the
Gatha dialect than we can discover in the ordinary Avesta, where these traces
of a more varied and not quite settled form of expression are much fewer, and
only met with, occasionally, in poetical pieces.

Judging from
these peculiarities, there seems no doubt that the dialect of the Gathas shows
some traces of a higher antiquity than can be claimed for the ordinary Avesta.
But the differences are not so great as between the Vedic and classical
Sanskrit, or between the Greek of Homer and that of the Attic dialect, the two
dialects of the Zend-Avesta being much closer to each other. They represent one
and the same language, with such changes as may have been brought about within
the space of one or two centuries. The Gatha dialect is, therefore, only one or
two centuries older than the ordinary Avesta language, which was the standard
language of the ancient Iranian empire.

Much of
the difficulty of understanding the Zend-Avesta arises, no doubt, from
grammatical defects in the texts extant, owing to the want of grammatical
studies among the ancient Persians and Bactrians. Had the study of grammar, as
a separate science, flourished among the ancient Mobads and Dasturs, as was the
case with Sanskrit grammar among the ancient Brahmans, and had Iran produced
men like Pānini, Kātyāyana, and Patanjali, who became lawgivers
of the classical Sanskrit language, we should have less ground to complain of
the bad condition of the texts, and have found fewer difficulties in explaining
them than we have now to encounter. There is every reason to believe that the
grammar of the Bactrian language was never fixed in any way by rules; thus the
corruptions and abbreviations of forms, which gradually crept from the popular
and colloquial into the written language, became unavoidable. In Sanskrit the
grammarians built, by means of numerous rules, under which every regular or
irregular form in that language was brought, a strong bulwark against the
importation of forms from the popular and vulgar language, which was
characterized by them as Prākrit.[6]
Grammar became a separate branch of study; manuscripts were then either copied
or written in strict accordance with the rules of grammar, but always with
attention to phonetical peculiarities, especially in Vedic books, if they had
any real foundation. To these grammatical studies of the Brahmans, which belong
to an age long gone by, we chiefly owe the wonderfully correct and accurately
grammatical state of the texts of the Vedas and other revered books of antiquity,
In Iran almost all knowledge of the exact meaning of the terminations died out
at the time when the ancient Iranian languages underwent the change from
inflected to uninflected idioms. Books were extant, and learnt by heart for
religious purposes, as is still done by the Parsi priests. But when the
language of the Zoroastrian books had become dead, there were no means for the
priests, who cared more for the mere mechanical recital of the sacred texts
than for a real knowledge of their meaning, to prevent corruptions of the
texts. Ignorant of anything like grammar, they copied them mechanically, like
the monks of Europe in the middle ages, or wrote them from memory, and, of
course, full of blunders and mistakes. On this account we find the copies now
used by Mobads and Dasturs, in a most deplorable condition as regards grammar;
the terminations are often written as separate words, and vowels inserted where
they ought to be omitted, in accordance with the wrong pronunciation of the
writer. The best text, comparatively speaking, is to be found in the oldest
copies; while in Vedic manuscripts (if written for religious purposes) there is
not the slightest difference, whether they are many centuries old or copied at
the present day. Westergaard has taken great trouble to give a correct text,
according to the oldest manuscripts accessible to him, and his edition is, in
most cases, far preferable to the manuscripts used by the priests of modern
times, If older manuscripts than those used by Westergaard be known to the
Dasturs, they should consider it their bounden duty to procure them for the
purpose of collation with Westergaard’s valuable edition, so that they may
ascertain all preferable readings for their own information and that of other
scholars. Why will they remain behind the Brahmans and the Jews, who have
preserved their sacred writings so well, and facilitated modern researches to
so great an extent? The era for a sound philological explanation of the
time-hallowed fragments of the Zoroastrian writings has come, and the Dasturs,
as the spiritual guides of the Parsi community, should take a chief part in it.
The darkness in which much of their creed is enshrouded should be dispelled;
but the only way of obtaining so desirable a result is by the diffusion of a sound
and critical knowledge of the Avesta language.

It has been
already noticed (p. 67) that after the five centuries of obscurity, and
probable anarchy,[7] which followed
the death of Alexander, when we next meet with the vernacular language of
Western Iran, it has assumed the form of Pahlavi, the name generally applied to
the language of the inscriptions of the Sasanian dynasty, whether on rocks or
coins.

Various
interpretations of the word Pahlavî have been proposed. Anquetil derives
it from the Persian pahlũ, "side," in which case Pahlavi
would mean "the frontier language;" but although this opinion has
been held by some scholars, it can hardly be correct, as it is difficult to
imagine that a frontier language could have spread over a vast empire. It has
also been connected with pahlav, "a hero,” but "the hero
language" is a very improbable designation. Native lexicographers have
traced Pahlavi to the name Pahlav of a town and province; that it was
not the language of a town only, is evident from Firdausi’s statements that the
Pahlavi traditions were preserved by the dihgân, " village chief;
" it may have been the language of a province, but the province of
Pahlav is said to have included Isphâhân, Rai, Hamadân, Nihavand, and
Adarbaijan, and must have comprised the ancient Media, but that country is
never called Pahlav by Persian and Arab historians. Quatremere was of
opinion that Pahlav was identical with the province Parthia, mentioned
by the Greeks; he shows, by reference to Armenian authors, that pahlav
was a royal title of the Arsacidans. As the Parthians regarded themselves as
the most warlike people of the Orient, it is not surprising that pahlav and
pahlavan in Persian, and pajhav or pahlav, and pahlavig
or palhavig in Armenian, became appellations for a warrior; the name
thus lost its national meaning altogether, and became only a title for bold
champions of old. It spread beyond the frontiers of Iran eastwards to India,
for we find the Pahlavas mentioned as a mighty foreign nation in the Râmâyana,
Mahâbhârata, and the Laws of Manu, and we can only understand them to have been
the Persians. Regarding the origin of the word, we may compare it with

Pâhlũm, "excellent,”
but cannot derive it therefrom.

As the
name of a nation, we can discover it only in the Parthva of the cuneiform
inscriptions, which is the Parthia of the Greeks and Romans. The change of
parthva into pahlav is not surprising, as l is not discoverable
in the ancient Iranian tongues, where r is used instead, and th
in the middle of an ancient Iranian word generally becomes h in Persian,
as in Av. mithra = Pers. mihir. It may be objected that the
Parthians were not Persians but probably a Scythic race, and that Pahlavi could
not have been the language of the Parthians. This objection, however, will not
hold good when we consider that the Parthians mere the actual rulers of Persia
for nearly five hundred years, and made themselves respected and famous
everywhere by their fierce and successful contests with the mightiest nation of
the ancient world, the Romans. It is not surprising, therefore, that the name
which once struck such terror into the hearts of Roman generals and emperors
was remembered in Persia, and that everything connected with antiquity, whether
in history, religion, letters, writing, or language, was called pahlavi,
or belonging to the ancient rulers of the country, the Parthians. Pahlavi thus
means, in fact, nothing but " ancient Persian " in general, without
restriction to any particular period or dialect. This we may see from the use
made of the word by Mohammedan writers; thus, Ibn Hauqal, an Arab geographer of
the tenth century, when describing the province of Fârs, the ancient Persis,
states that three languages were used there, viz. (a) the Fârsi (Persian),
spoken by the natives when conversing with one another, which was spread all
over Persia, and understood everywhere; (b) the Pahlavi, which
was the language of the ancient Persians, in which the Magi wrote their
historical records, but which in the writer’s time could not be understood by
the inhabitants of the province without a translation ; (c) the Arabic, which
was used for all official documents. Of other languages spoken in Persia he
notices the Khuzi, the language of Khuzistan, which he states to be quite
different from Hebrew, Syriac, or Farsi. In the Mujmilu-t-tawarikh there is an
account of "Pahlavi" inscriptions at Persepolis, but the writer
evidently means those in cuneiform characters.

From all this
we may clearly see that the name Pahlavi was not limited to any particular
period or district. In the time of Firdausi (A.D. 1000), the cuneiform writing
as well as the Sasanian inscriptions passed for Pahlavi characters; and the
ancient Persian and Avesta were regarded as Pahlavi, equally with the official
language of the Sasanian period, to which the term has been now restricted, since
the others have become better known. The term Pahlavi was thus, in fact,
never used by the Persians themselves in any other sense than that of “ancient
Persian,” whether they referred to the Sasanian, Arsacidan, Achaemenian,
Kayanian, or Peshdadian times: Any reader of the Shahnamah will arrive at this
conclusion. This misapplication of a more recent name to earlier historical
facts is analogous to the misuse of the appellation Arumak, “Roman,”
which the Parsi writers apply to Alexander, the Macedonian conqueror, because
he entered the Persian empire from the quarter where the Roman armies appeared
in later times.

However
loosely the term Pahlavi may have been formerly applied, it has long been
practically restricted to the written language of Persia during the Sasanian
dynasty, and to the literature of that period and a short time after, of which
some fragments have been preserved by the Parsis, in a character resembling
that of the Avesta, but very deficient in distinct letters. These Pahlavi
writings are of a very peculiar character: instead of presenting us with a pure
Iranian dialect (as might be expected in the language of a period commencing
with the purely Iranian ancient Persian, and ending with the nearly equally
pure Iranian language of Firdausi), it exhibits a large admixture of Semitic
words, which increases as we trace it further back, so that the earliest
inscriptions of the Sasanian dynasty may be described as being written in a
Semitic language, with some admixture of Iranian words, and a prevailing
Iranian construction. Traces of the Semitic portion of the Pahlavi can ’ be
found on coins of the third and fourth century B.C., and possibly on some
tablets found at Nineveh which must be as old as the seventh century B.C.; so
there is some reason to suppose that it may be derived from one of the dialects
of the Assyrian language, although it differs considerably from the language of
the Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions. Practically, however, our acquaintance
with Pahlavi commences with the inscriptions of the first Sasanian kings on
rocks and coins.

Since
the Mohammedan conquest of Persia, the language has become greatly mixed with
Semitic words from the Arabic, but this Semitic admixture is of a totally
different character to that we find in Pahlavi. The Arabic element in modern
Persian consists chiefly of substantives and adjectives, referring to religion,
literature, or science; few particles or verbs have been adopted, except when
whole phrases have been borrowed ; in fact, the Arabic words, although very
numerous, are evidently borrowed from a foreign language. The Semitic element
in Pahlavi writings, on the contrary, comprises nearly all kinds of words which
are not Arabic in modern Persian; almost all pronouns, prepositions,
conjunctions, and common verbs, many adverbs and substantives in frequent use,
the first ten numerals, but very few adjectives, are Semitic; while nearly
every Arabic word in modern Persian would be re-presented by an Iranian one in
Pahlavi writings. It is optional, however, to use Iranian equivalents for any
of these Semitic words when writing Pahlavi, but these equivalents are rarely
used for some of the pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions; so rarely,
indeed, that the orthography of a few of them is uncertain. Notwithstanding the
Semitic appearance of the written Pahlavi, we find that all traces of Semitic
inflexions have disappeared, except in a few of the earliest Sasanian
inscriptions, written in a peculiar character and dialect, called
Chaldaeo-Pahlavi, in which the Chaldee plural suffix in is still often used, as
in mâlkin mâlka, "king of kings,” instead of mâlkan mâlka in
the ordinary Sasanian Pahlavi inscriptions of the same age, where the Iranian
plural suffix ân is used. Besides this Iranian suffix to nouns, we find
the verbs appearing in one unchangeable Semitic form, to which is added certain
Iranian suffixes, except in the earliest inscriptions in Sasanian Pahlavi,
where these suffixes are wanting. In addition to these indications of Iranian
grammar, we also find a prevailing Iranian construction in the sentences, as
much in the older inscriptions as in the later writings.

The
explanation of this extraordinary compound writing, fundamentally Semitic in
its words and Iranian in its construction, is that it never literally
represented the spoken language of any nation. The Iranians must have inherited
their writing from a Semitic people, and although they were acquainted with the
separate sounds of each of the letters, they preferred transferring the Semitic
words bodily, so as to represent the same ideas in their own Iranian language,
and each Semitic word, so transferred, was merely an ideogram, and would be
read with the sound of the corresponding Iranian word, without reference to the
sounds of the letters composing it; thus the Persians wrote the old Semitic
word malkâ, "king,” but they pronounced it shah. When the Semitic
words had more than one grammatical form, they would, for the sake of
uniformity be usually borrowed in one particular form, and probably in the form
which occurred most frequently in the Semitic writings. As these ideograms were
to represent an Iranian language, they would be arranged, of course, according
to Iranian syntax. For certain words the writer could find no exact Semitic
equivalent, especially for Iranian names and religious terms; to express them
he had recourse to the alphabet, and wrote these words as they were pronounced;
thus laying the foundation of the Iranian element in the Pahlavi. As the
Semitic ideograms remained unchanged, [8]1
it was necessary to add Iranian suffixes to indicate the few grammatical forms
which survived in the spoken language ; these additions appear to have been
only gradually made, for the sake of greater precision, as some of them are not
found in the older inscriptions. In later writings we find a few other Iranian
additions to Semitic words, used generally to indicate some modification of the
original word; thus abu = pid, “father,” is altered into abidar
= pidar; am = mad, “mother,” into amidar = madar; &c.
In these later writings, we also find the proportion of the Semitic element
considerably reduced, being confined to the representation of some three to
four hundred of the commonest words in the language, while all other words are
Iranian, written as they are pronounced.

As a
proof that the Persians did not use the Semitic words in speaking, we may quote
the statement of Ammianus Marcellinus (xix. 2,II). When referring to the war
between the Roman Emperor Constantius and Shahpuhar II, about A.D. 350, he says
that the Persians used the terms saansaan and pyrosen, meaning
"king of kings" and "conqueror.” Both these terms are Iranian,
the first being shahan-shah and the latter piruz, "
victorious,” and show conclusively that the Persians of those times did not
pronounce malkân mlkâ, although they wrote those words, but they both
wrote and pronounced piruz, which has no Semitic equivalent in Pahlavi.
More than four centuries later, Ibn Muqaffa, a Mohammedan writer of the latter
half of the eighth century, states that the Persians ‘possess a kind of
spelling which they call zavarish; they write by it the characters
connected as well as separated, and it 'consists of about a thousand
words (which are put together), in order to distinguish those which have the
same meaning. For instance, if somebody intends to write gosht, that is lakhm
(meat) in Arabic, he writes bisrâ, but ' reads gosht; and if
somebody intends to write nân, that is khubz (bread) in Arabic,
he writes lahma, but reads nân. And in this manner they treat all words
that they intend to write. Only things which do not require such a change are
written just as they are pronounced. It appears from this that the Persians of
the eighth century did exactly as a Parsi priest would do at the present time;
when they came to a Semitic word while reading Pahlavi, they pronounced its
Persian equivalent, so that their reading was entirely Persian, although the
writing was an odd mixture of Semitic, Persian, and hybrid words. It was always
optional to write the Persian word instead of its Semitic equivalent, and it
was only necessary to make this the rule, instead of the exception, to convert
the old Pahlavi into pure Persian. This final step became compulsory when the
Persians adopted a new alphabet, with which the old Semitic ideograms would not
amalgamate, but which facilitated the adoption of Arabic terms introduced by
their Mohammedan conquerors. Hence the sudden change from Pahlavi to modern
Persian was rather a change in writing than an alteration in speaking. The
spoken language changed but slowly, by the gradual adoption of Arabic words and
phrases, as may be seen from a comparison of the language of Firdausi with that
of recent Persian
writers.

Ibn
Muqaffa uses the term zavarish for the Semitic element in Pahlavi, and
this is the term usually employed in Persian, although written occasionally azvarish
or uzvarash; in Pahlavi it is written huzvarish or auzvarishn,
but it is doubtful if the word occurs in any very old writings. Several attempts
have been made to explain its etymology, but as its correct form is by no means
certain, it affords, very little basis for trustworthy etymology. The term
Huzvarish is applied not only to the Semitic ideograms, but also to a smaller
number of Iranian words written in an obsolete manner, so as to be liable to
incorrect pronunciation; these obsolete Iranian written forms are used as
ideograms in the same manner as the old Semitic words. The habit of not
pronouncing the Huzvarish as it is written must have tended to produce
forgetfulness of the original pronunciation of the words ; this was to some
extent obviated by the compilation of a glossary of the Huzvarish forms, with
their pronunciation in Avesta characters, as well as their Iranian equivalents.
When this glossary was compiled is uncertain, but as the pronunciation of some
of the Huzvarish words is evidently merely guessed from the appearance of the
letters, we may conclude that the true sounds of some of the words were already
forgotten.

It has
been already noticed (p. 68) that Pahlavi translations of the Avesta are called
Zand, and we may here further observe that the Iranian equivalent of Huzvarish
is called Pazand, reserving further explanation of these terms for the third
Essay. This Pâzand may be written in Pahlavi characters, as happens when single
Pâzand words are substituted for their Huzvarish equivalents in a Pahlavi text;
or it may be written in Avesta characters, which happens when the whole text is
so transliterated, and is then called a Pâzand text; or this Pâzand text may be
further transliterated into the modern Persian character, when it is still
called Pâzand, and differs from the Iranian element of modern Persian only in
its frequent use of obsolete words, forms, and construction. It would be
convenient to call this Persian form of Pâzand by the name Parsi but it is not
so called by the Parsis themselves, nor in their books; with them, Parsi or
Farsi means simply modern Persian, more or less similar to Firdausi’s language.
It has been mentioned above that it would be easy to forget the pronunciation
of the Huzvarish words, and it is now necessary to explain how this could be.
The Pahlavi alphabets, being of Semitic origin, have not only all the usual
deficiencies of other Semitic alphabets, but also some defects peculiar to
themselves, so that several sounds are sometimes represented by the same
letter; this ambiguity is greatly increased, in Pahlavi books, by the union of
two or more of these ambiguous letters into one compound character, which is
sometimes precisely similar to one of the other single letters; the uncertainty
of reading any word, therefore, which is not readily identified is very great.
No short vowels are expressed, except initial a, but it is presumed they are to
be understand where necessary, as in all Semitic alphabets.

Two or three of the earliest rock
inscriptions of the Sasanian kings record the names and titles of Ardashir-I
Pâpakan and his son Shâhpuhar I. (A.D. 226-270) in three languages, Greek and two
dialects of Pahlavi. The Pahlavi versions are engraved in two very different
characters, one called Chaldaeo-Pahlavi, from some resemblances to Chaldae in
letters and forms, the other called Sasanian Pahlavi, as being more generally
used by the Sasanian kings in their inscriptions, both on rocks and coins, This
latter character changes by degrees, on the coins of the later Sasanian kings,
till it becomes nearly identical with the Pahlavi character in the manuscripts
still extant; while the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi appears to have gone out of use before
A.D. 300. Two more inscriptions, of greater length, are engraved in both these
Pahlavi dialects, but without any Greek translation; of one of these
inscriptions only a few fragments are yet known, but the other is complete, and
we may take it as a specimen of the Pahlavi writings of the early Sasanian
times, as it refers to King Shâhpuhar I. (A.D. 240-270).

This
inscription is engraved on two separate tablets (one for each dialect), cut on
the rock-wall at the entrance of a cave near the village of Hajiâbâd, not far
from the ruins of Persepolis. Copies of the two versions were published by
Westergaard at the end (pp. 83, 84) of his lithographed edition of the text of
the Bundahish. Plaster casts of the whole of the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi, and of the
first six lines of the Sasanian Pahlavi version, are preserved in the British
Museum and elsewhere; and a photograph from one set of these casts was
published by Thomas in the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,” new
series, vol. iii. From a comparison of these copies with the photograph we
obtain the following texts, the words of one version being placed immediately
below those of the other for the sake of convenient comparison, and short
vowels being introduced where they seem necessary.

A few
words in this inscription are not quite intelligible, but by comparing one
version with the other, which corresponds closely in all but two or three
phrases, we can arrive at the meaning of most of the obscure passages, and
translate as follows: -

“This is
an edict of me, the Mazda-worshipping divine being Shahpuar, king of the kings
of Iran and non-Iran, of spiritual origin from God; son of the
Mazda-worshipping divine being Asrashir, king of the kings of Iran, of
spiritual origin from God; grandson of the divine being Papak, the king. And
when this arrow [11] was shot by
us, then it was shot by us in the presence of the satraps, grandees, magnates,
and nobles; and our feet were set in this cave, and the arrow was shot out by
us towards that target; but there where the arrow would have dropped was no
place (for it), where if a target were constructed, then it (the arrow) would
have been manifest outside; then we ordered: A spirit target is constructed in
front, thus a spirit hand has written: Set not the feet in this cave, and shoot
not an arrow at that target, after the spirit arrow shot at that target; the
hand has written that.”

Comparing
the two versions of this inscription with the Pahlavi of the manuscripts, it
will be noticed that though the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi differs most, it still
corresponds with the manuscripts to the extent of about one-third of the words,
amongst which the preposition kal, " to, at,” explains the
manuscript ghal, which has been often read ghan or ghu,
and is used for either val or valman. The construction of the
Chaldaeo-Pahlavi resembles generally that of the manuscript Pahlavi, but
‘it does not suffix the pronoun to the initial conjunction or adverb in each
phrase, which is a peculiarity of Pahlavi as compared with modern Persian.
Furthermore, the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi has begun to use Iranian terminations to
Semitic verbs, as t in haqaimut, yehu t, havint ; d in lehavind,
haqaimud, yamzud; and the conditional de” in havinde. The
Sasanian version has not advanced to that stage in which it adopted Iranian
terminations to Semitic verbs, although they are freely used in other
inscriptions some twenty or thirty years later; but in all other respects the
Sasanian approaches much closer than the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi to the language of
the manuscripts, about two-thirds of the words being identical, and the
construction of the sentences precisely the same. Thus we find the pronoun
suffixed to the initial conjunction or adverb in some phrases, as in afan and
adinan, only the pronominal suffix is Semitic; but in later Sasanian
inscriptions we find Iranian suffixes, as in afam and afash. This
inscription leaves the question of the origin of the idhafat, or
relative particle, very uncertain. This particle is nearly always expressed in
Pahlavi writings, [12]
and not merely understood, as it is generally in modern Persian. In this
inscription several words, in both versions, end in i but as this vowel
termination cannot be the idhâfat in some cases, it may not be so in
any. Thus in the Sasanian version the final i may be an idhâfat in bagiShahpuhari,
napi, Pâpaki, levini,
and possibly in chitri, but it cannot be so in diki, biruni, and chitaki,
and an idhafat is wanting after malka,barman, Artakhshatar, and lechadu.
In the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi version the final i may be an idhâfat in Shahipuhari, bari,
and puhari, but it cannot be so in shili and akasi, and an
idhafat is wanting after alaha, malka, Artakhshatar, puhar, bag, Pâpak, and lehad, and perhaps after
shihar and qadmatman, The omission of an idhâfat after malka is most
significant, as it is a position in which it would be expressed even in modern
Persian; it is, therefore, very doubtful whether any final i is intended
as an idhâfat. In inscriptions a few years later we find the idhâfat in the form of the Semitic
relative zi.

To
compare with the early Sasanian Pahlavi of the inscriptions, we may take, as a
specimen of the manuscript Pahlavi, a passage from the Kârnamak-i Ardashfr Pâkakân, in which the Semitic ideograms
are given in italics, and a complete Pâzand version, in Neryoshangh's orthography,[13]
is interlined; so that the upper line gives the text as it is written, and the
lower as it is pronounced: -

This passage
may be translated as follows: - Papak, when he saw the letter, became anxious,
and he wrote in reply to Ardashir thus: Thou didst unwisely, when, to carry on
a quarrel with the great, in a matter from which there need be no harm. thou
spakest words fierce and, loudly about it. Now call for release, and recount
with sorrow; for the wise have said that an enemy is not able to take that, as
an enemy, to which a righteous man attains by his own actions. This also is
said: Be not an antagonist of that person, away from whom you depart not. And
thou thyself knowest that Ardavan is a very despotic sovereign over me and thee
and many men in the world, as to body and life, property and wealth. And now
also my advice to thee is most strongly this, that thou practice conciliation
thyself, and act obediently, and yield not to want foresight.

It will
be noticed that many of the words in this Pahlavitext,
such as did, kard, nipisht, &c., are Pazand, although they
have Semitic or Huzvarish equivalents, such as khaditund, vadund, yektibund,
&c., which might have been used. This is generally the case in Pahlavi
manuscripts, as it is quite optional for the writer to use either the

Huzvarish
word or its Pazand equivalent, except perhaps in the case of some of the particles
and detached pronouns, which are hardly ever used in their Pazand form in
Pahlavi writings. It is necessary to observe that the proportion of Huzvbish
words in a manuscript is no criterion of its age, but merely an indication of
the style of its writer, for it is not unusual for a manuscript of yesterday to
contain more Huzvarish than one of the same text written five hundred years ago;
though sometimes the case is reversed. The reason for this uncertain use of
Huzvarish is obvious; the copyist either knows the text by heart, or reads it
from a manuscript, but in either case he repeats it to himself in Pazand, so
that he has nothing but frequent reference to the original to guide him in the
choice between Huzvarish and Pazand modes of writing, and for want of frequent
reference he will often substitute one for the other, or even use a wrong
equivalent (if he does not quite understand his text) when there are two
Huzvarish forms with nearly the same Pazand, or when he has misread a Huzvarish
form which has two meanings. Thus we often find the Huzvarish amat, "
when,” confounded with mun, " which,” because the Pazand of both is ka or
ke; and sometimes the Huz. aigh, “that,” is similarly confounded,
owing to its having been read ki instead of ku; on the other
hand, as the Huz. vakhdund, "taken,” cannot be distinguished
from vadund, "done,” they are both liable to be read and written either kard
or grift, according to the knowledge or ignorance of the copyist.

Pahlavi
writings may be divided into two classes: first, translations from the Avesta;
and, secondly, writings of which no Avesta original is known. The translations
are always written in sentences of moderate length, alternating with those of
the Avesta text; they are extremely literal, but are interspersed with short
explanatory sentences, and sometimes with long digressions, serving as a
commentary on the text. The Pahlavi writings without an Avesta original are
nearly entirely of a religious character, though a few are devoted to
historical legends. Pazand versions of some of these writings, as well as of
the translations, exist both in the Avesta and modern Persian characters.
Sometimes the Pazand, when written in the Avesta character, alternates with a
Sanskrit or Gujrati translation; and when written in the modern’ Persian
character, in which case we may call it a Parsi version, it is usually
accompanied by a Persian translation, either alternating with the Parsi
sentences or interlined ; in the latter case, it is a literal
translation, and in the former it is more of a paraphrase. Some writings are
found only in Persian, and this is more especially the case with the Rivayats
or collections of memoranda and decisions regarding ceremonial observances and
miscellaneous religious matters; these are generally very free from Arabic
words, but some of them contain nearly as much Arabic as is used in Mohammedan
Persian writings. These Rivayats also contain metrical Persian versions of some
of the more popular Pahlavi and Pazand books ; these distant imitations of the
Shahnameh are generally from two hundred to three hundred and fifty years old.
Having thus taken a brief survey of the Pahlavi writings and their connection
with Parsi literature generally, me may now proceed to give further details of
such works as are known to be still extant, beginning with the translations
from the Avesta.

The Pahlavi
Vendidad is probably the most important of these translations, and extends
to about 48000 words.[18]Each sentence of the Avesta text is
continuously followed by a literal translation, or attempted translation, in
Pahlavi, interspersed with short explanations of unusual words, and often
concluding with an alternative translation, introduced by the phrase, “There is
(some one) who says.” In many places the translation of a sentence winds up
with a longer commentary, containing Avesta quotations, and citing the opinions
of various old commentators who are named, but regarding whom very little is
known. As the next sentence in the Avesta text follows without break of line,
it is often difficult to distinguish it from one of the Avesta quotations
before mentioned. In the translation there are probably fragments of various
ages, as some of the commentaries bear traces of translation from Avesta
originals, while many of the shorter explanations appear more modern, but they
must have been brought together in their present form before the Mohammedan
conquest. All the known extant copies of the Vendidad with Pahlavi appear to
have descended from a manuscript of herbad Homast, from which a copy was made
in Sistan in A.Y. 554 (A.D. I 185) by Ardashir Bahman, and taken to India by
herbad Mahyar Mah-mihir, who had been passing six years with the herbads of
Sistan, whither he had come from the town of Khujak on the Indus. After the
arrival of this MS. In India it was re-copied by Rustam Mihirapan, who has
forgotten to mention the year, [19]and from his copy the oldest manuscript now
extant was copied by herbad Mihirapan Kai-Khusro (who was probably his great-grand-nephew)
in A.Y. 693 (A.D. 1324) in the town of Kambay. This manuscript is now in the
University Library at Copenhagen, but is very defective; the first portion of
the manuscript (Vend. i. I-V. 78, Sp.) having fallen into other hands, probably
on some division of property among brothers; and nearly half the remainder is SO
much damaged, by the ink corroding the paper, that it is almost useless.
Another manuscript, which appears to be in the same handwriting, but the
colophon of which is missing, is in the India Office Library in London; this is
also defective, as the folios containing Vend. I. I-iii. 48 and IV. 82-viii.
310 have fallen into other hands, and have been replaced by modern writing; the
folios containing Vend. iii. 49-iv. 81, and a few others, are also damaged by
the corrosive action of the ink used by Mihirapan Kai-Khusro. From a comparison
of these two manuscripts, we can ascertain the state of the text 5 53 years
ago, except with regard to Vend. i. I-iii 48 and a few other short defective
passages, for which we must refer to other old manuscripts. One of these was
formerly in the library of Dastur Jamasp Asa at Nawsari, and is said to have
been transferred from Bombay to Teheran in Persia some twenty years ago. It was
copied, probably from the Copenhagen MS., in A.Y. 963 (A.D. I 594), by
herbad Ardashir Ziva, in the town of Bhroch; it is rather carelessly written,
and many of the later copies are descended from it.[20]
Another old manuscript, now in the University Library at Bombay, was obtained
at Bhroch; it corresponds very closely to the one last mentioned, and is
probably about the same age, but its colophon is lost. The Pahlavi Vendidad was
printed at Vienna separate from the Avesta text, and was published by Spiegel
in 1853, but his text can be muchimproved by careful collation
with the old manuscripts above mentioned. None of these MSS. contain the
twelfth fargard of the Vendidad, sothat the Pahlavi translation of this fargard,
which occurs in a few modern MSS., is Probably the work of some Dastur in
India. It is difficult to account for the omission of the twelfth fargard in
the old MSS., as the fargards are all numbered, so that any accidental leap
from the eleventh to the thirteenth ought to have been soon discovered; and it
is unlikely that the twelfth fargard would have occupied exactly the whole of
any number of folios which may have been lost from some original manuscript
before it was copied.

The Pahlavi Yasna
contains about 39000 words, exclusive of the kiriya or introductory
prayers. It is written alternating with itsAvesta,in the same manner as the
Vendidad, but the long interpolatedcommentaries are much less common, and fewer commentators are quoted; so
it may be suspected of containing less old matter than the Pahlavi Vendidad.
For the oldest manuscripts of this text we are again indebted to herbad
Mihirapan Kai-Khusro who copied at Kambay a manuscript of the Yasna with
Pahlavi (now in the University Library at Copenhagen) in A.Y. 692 (A.D. 1323)
from a manuscript written by Rustam Mihirapan; in the same year he also wrote a
second manuscript of the same, which is now in the library of Dastur Jamaspji
Minoehiharji in Bombay, and is dated only twenty-two days later than the first,
but it does not mention whence it was copied. Both these manuscripts begin with
a series of introductory prayers in Avesta and Pahlavi, of which the
commencement is lost; some of the folios are also damaged in both by the
corrosive action of the ink used by the writer; and one folio in the middle of
the Bombay copy is lost, and many others are worm-eaten. Several more modern
manuscripts of the Yasna with Pahlavi exist but they are less common than those
of the Vendidad. The Avesta and Pahlavi texts were printed separately at
Vienna, and published by Spiegel in 1855, but his text would be improved by
collation with the old manuscript in Bombay.

The Pahlavi
Visperad contains about 3300 words, and resembles in character the Pahlavi
translation of the Yasna. Probably the oldest copy of this text extant is
contained in a manuscript of miscellaneous texts brought from India by the
author of these Essays; this copy was written by Peshyotan Ram Kamdin at Bhroch
in A.Y. 766 (A.D. 1397). The Avesta and Pahlavi texts were printed
separately at Vienna, and published by Spiegel, along with the Yasna texts, in
1858.

The
Hadokht nask in Pahlavi is a mere fragment, containing about I 5 30
words, and consisting of three fargards which were probably not consecutive in
the original Nask. The first fargard details the value of reciting the Ashem
vohu formula under different circumstances, and is probably an extract from
the first division of the Nask. The second and third fargards describe the fate
of the souls of the righteous and wicked respectively during the first three
days after death; but their contents do not agree very well with the
description of the Nask in the Dinkard, where it is stated to have consisted of
three divisions containing 13, 102, and 19 sections respectively.[21]
The oldest copies of the text known to be extant are contained in the
manuscript of miscellaneous texts written in A.D. 1397, which includes the
Visparad, as mentioned above; also in a very similar manuscript in the
University Library at Copenhagen, which must be about the same age. Avesta and
Pahlavi texts, alternating as in the manuscripts, were printed at Stuttgart,
and published with the Arda-Viraf Namak in 1872, and a translation of the
Avesta text will be found in the third Essay.

The Vishtasp
yasht is found with a Pahlavi translation of about 5200 words, but only one
manuscript has been examined; this is in the library of Dastur Jamaspji in
Bombay, and is said to have been written some thirty-five years ago. The Avesta
text is probably descended from the Kirman manuscript used by Westergaard, and
now at Copenhagen, and the Pahlavi text has the appearance of a modern
translation.

Pahlavi
translations of other Yashts also exist such as those of the Auharmazd yasht,
about 2000 words: the Khurshed yasht and MMah yasht, each about 400
words; the Srosh yasht hadokht, about 700 words ; the Haptan yasht Behram
yasht, and probably others which have not been examined. In these, as in
all the other translations the Pahlavi alternates with the Avesta; and there
seems little doubt that most of these Yasht translations are old.

Among
the remaining translations are the Pahlavi texts of the Atash
hyayish, about 1000 words; the Khurshed nyayish, about 500
words; the Aban nyayish about 450 words ; the Afringan gatha, the
Afringn gahanbar, the Afringan dahman (Yasna, lix. 2-15 Sp.), the
last containing about 450 words ; the Afrin myazd, also called
Afrin Zaratusht ; the Sirozah in both its forms, containing about 530 and 650
words respectively; and many short extracts from the Yasna which are much used
in the Xhurdah Avesta, such as the Ashem-vohu Hatha-ahu-vairyo, and
Yenke-hatam formulas; Yasna, v. I, 2; XXXV. 4-6, 13-15; i. 65-67,
sp.; &c.

The
Chidak avistak-i gasan, or selection from the Gathas, is an old miscellaneous
collection of short passages, sometimes merely single lines, from various parts
of the Gathas, alternating with the usual Pahlavi translation. Altogether 76
lines are quoted from the Avesta, and the Pahlavi translation of about, 1100
words does not differ materially from that given in manuscripts of the Yasna.
Several copies of this selection exist, but the oldest seems to be that in the
manuscript of miscellaneous texts written in A.D. 1397, as mentioned above.

Intermediate
between the translations and the purely Pahlavi works, there are those which
contain many Avesta quotations, which are often translated, but do not in
themselves form any connected text, as the bulk of the work is Pahlavi.
The following three are of this class: -

The Nirangistan contains about 30,000 words, including the Avesta
quotations, many of which are no longer extant in the Zend-Avesta It consists
of three fargards, and treats of a great number of minute details regarding
rites and ceremonies, and precautions to be adopted while performing them. Its
contents correspond very closely with the description of the second section of
the Husparam Nask, as given in the Dinkard; and the name of that section was
Nirangistan. The opinions, of many of the old commentators mentioned in the
Pahlavi Vendidad are also often quoted in this work. A manuscript of the
Nirangistan was brought from Persia to India by Dastur Jamasp Wilayati, A.D.I.
720 ; this was copied from a manuscript dated A.Y. 840 (A.D.I. 471), but whether
it still exists is uncertain ; it was re-copied by Dastur Jamasp Asa of
Nawasari in A.Y. 1097 (A.D. 1727), and this copy is now in the library of the
Khan Bahadar Dastur Noshirvanji Jamaspji at Poona. Several later copies exist,
but owing to the text being difficult and little known to copyists, their
variations from the original are unusually numerous.

The Farhang-i oim khaduk or vocabulary of Avesta and Pahlavi, so
called from its first words being oim khaduk, consists of about 3300
words, including the Avesta, and contains several words and phrases which are
no longer. extant in t he Avesta texts. Very old copies of this vocabulary
exist in two manuscripts of miscellaneous Pahlavi tests, one brought from India
by the author of these Essays, and written in A.D. 1397 and the other at
Copenhagen, written about the same time. Dastur Hoshangji’s edition of this
vocabulary, printed at Stuttgart, and published in 1867 with the title of
" An Old Zand-Pahlavi Glossary,” could probably be improved by collation
with these old copies of the text.

The
Afrin-i dahman, including the aogemadaecha Avesta quotations,
contains about 2,000 words. The first of the quotations is Yasna, vii. 60 Sp.,
but most of the others are no longer extant in the Avesta. They are also found
with alternating Pazand and Sanskrit translations, and without the introductory
sentences of the Afrin We may now proceed to notice the purely Pahlavi works,
which contain but few quotations from the Avesta, and those are generally
references to the proper texts to be recited on particular occasions. There is
much diversity in the style of these compositions, some being merely
descriptive, in which the language is easy, and the construction simple; while
others are more philosophical, and their language difficult and obscure.

The Vajarkard-i
d in i, containing about 19,000 words, might almost be classed with the
preceding, as the latter part of it contains several quotations from the
Avesta. I t is a very miscellaneous collection of injunctions and details
regarding religious matters, resembling a Rivayat, and divided into three
chapters, professing to have been written by Medyomah, one of the old
commentators quoted in the Pahlavi translations and other works, An old
manuscript of the work, written in Kirman, A.Y. 609 (A.D. 1240), is said to
have been brought to India and deposited in the library of the Mody family in
Surat, where it was copied A.Y.I. 123 (A.D. 1754) by an uncle of the late
high-priest of the Parsis in Bombay; from this copy the text was edited by
Dastur Peshotanji, and printed in Bombay in 1848, as already mentioned (p. 59).
This work includes three or four of the minor texts hereafter mentioned, as
will be noticed when we come to them. The Dinkard is the longest Pahlavi
work extant, although the first portion of it, containing the first and second
books, is missing; the latter part of the work, consisting of books iii.-ix.,
contains about 170,000 words. The third book consists of a series of
explanations of religious matters and duties, for general information and
removal of doubt, concluding with a description of the solar and lunar years,
and a legendary history of the Dinkard which is evidently identified with that
of the Nasks generally ; this book contains 73,000 words. The fourth book
contains various statements selected from the religious books by Adarfrobag-i
Farukhzadan, the original editor of the Dinkard (see p. 55), extending to about
4000 words; these statements commence with the characteristics of the Ameshaspends,
and in discussing those of Shatrovair the third Ameshaspend, an account is g
given of the endeavours of various sovereigns, from Vishtasp to Khusro-i
Kavadan (Noshir-van), to collect and preserve the national literature. The
fifth book contains the sayings of the same Adarfrobag from a book, called
Simara,[22]
and his replies to many questions on obscure and difficult matters in history,
astrology and religious customs, extending to about 6000 words. The sixth book
contains the opinions of the poryodkeshan (professors of the primeval
religion of Zarathushtra) on all matters of tradition, customs, and duties,
with many sayings of Adarpad Maraspendan ; the whole extending to about 23,000
words. The seventh book contains an account of the wonders, or miracles, of the
Mazdayasnian religion from the time of Gayomard, the first man, to ‘that of
Soshans, the last of the future prophets ; including many details of the life
of Zarathushtt and extending to about 16000 words. The eighth book contains an
account of the twenty-one Nasks, giving a short description of each, but going
into more details of the four Nasks xv.-xviii. Which constitute the majority of
the seven "legal Nasks; this book consists of. about 20,000 words. The
ninth book contains a much more detailed account of the contents of each
fargard of the first three Nasks, concluding with some remarks upon selections
from the whole. Yasna, and extending to about 27,000 words. The work concludes
with colophons to the extent of nearly 1000 words, which relate that this
latter part of the Dinkard was copied at the place where it was found,
Khushkand in Asuristan, from an original which had been written by elders of
the family of Adarpbd-i Maraspendan, by Mahvandad Narimahan Behram Mihirapan,
and finished on the 24th day of the 4th month A.Y. 369 (7th July A.D.
1000). From this copy others dated A.Y. 865, 1009,[23]
and 1038 I have descended, and the last appears to have been brought from
‘Persia to Surat in A.Y. 1152 (A.D.I. 783) by Mulla Bahman, and about four
years afterwards some copies of the manuscript of A.Y. 1038 (A.D. 1669) were
spread among the Parsis; but before any of these copies were made, the
manuscript from Persia had been lent to various parties, and more than
one-sixth of the whole had been abstracted, so that all the manuscripts are now
deficient to’ that extent; but out of 69 folios missing, 64 have been
discovered, though they still remain in various hands. The, manuscript itself
is in the library of Dastur Sohrabji Rustamji, the high-priest of the Kadmi
sect of Parsis in Bombay. Dastur Peshotanji is publishing an edition of the
text, with Gujrati and English translations, as has been already mentioned (p.
59), but it will be many years before he can complete his task.

The name
Dadistan-i-dini is usually confined to a work of about 30,000 words,
written by Dastur Minochihar Yuda-daman, who was high-priest of the
Mazdayasnians in Fars and Kirman about A.Y. 350[24]
(A.D. 981). It consists of 92 questions and answers about religious duties,
customs, and legends ; the last of these answers seems to be incomplete, so
that a portion of the original work may have been lost. The oldest manuscript
of this text that has been examined was written in Kirman by Marjpbn Fredun in
A.Y. 941 (A.D. 1572); his writing was to supply the deficiencies in a still
older manuscript, of which only 28 folios now remain; and his manuscript has,
in its turn, had its deficiencies supplied ‘from later copies. In this
manuscript the text of the Dadistan-i-dini is preceded and followed by other
somewhat similar writings by the same Dastur, and by Zadsparam-i Yudan-daman,
who appears to have been his brother. The first part of these extra writings
contains about 23,000 words, and the last part about 30,000 words, of which
5000 are lost; if these writings be taken as part of the Dadistan-i-dini, the
whole work contains about 78,000 words extant. The author of these Essays
recommended the Parsis, twelve years ago, to have this work translated, and it
is said that a translation was prepared, but has not been published. If the
nonappearance of this translation be due to any of the opinions of the old
Dastur of Kirman differing from those of Parsis of the present day, it is to be
regretted, as the proper course in such a case would be to publish a correct
translation, and point out the probable cause of the original writer’s errors
in notes; this is all the more necessary as none of the Pahlavi books are free
from statements which would be considered heterodox nowadays. Thus, whenever
they give details regarding khvetuk-das, or next-of-kin marriage, they describe
it as applying to closer relationships than present customs tolerate; but
whatever may have been the reasons for the establishment of this custom when
the Zoroastrian faith was in power,[25]
it is evident that when the faith was held merely by a persecuted remnant of
‘the Persian people, their priests advocated the custom as a specially
meritorious act, with the view of discouraging intermarriages with their
Mohammedan neighbors, which would have led to the final extinction of
Zoroastrianism. That the present customs of the Parsis are not quite the same as
those of eight or ten centuries ago is not surprising, when we consider
that it was the usual practice of all Christian sects who had sufficient power,
two or three centuries ago, to put heretics and witches to death by burning or
otherwise; such practices were t he n not only legal, but were considered
highly meritorious; now they would be called judicial murders.

The Shikand-gumani
vijar is a controversial work of about 18,000 words, written by
Mardan-farukh-i Auharmazd-dad, who acknowledges the instruction he has received
from the Dinkard of Adarfrobag-i Farukhzadan, which contained a thousand
chapters (dar), as well as from the Dinkard [26]
of Adarpadyavand, a work no longer known, unless it be the book of the
Mainyo-i-khard, mentioned hereafter. The writer begins by answering, some
questions of Mihiryar-i Mahmadan of Ispahan regarding the existence and work of
the evil spirit being permitted by Auharmazd; he then proceeds to prove the
existence of God, and to disprove the arguments of atheists, and of those who
disbelieve in the evil spirit, and attribute both, good and evil to God; and he
concludes by criticizing the doctrines of the Jews, Christians, and
Manichaeans. Most of the manuscripts of this work are incomplete, and only the
first 3600 words are found in the Pahlavi character; the more complete
manuscripts are in Pazand with Neryosangh's Sanskrit translation, but there are
evident indications of the Pazand text having been originally transliterated
from Pahlavi An edition of the Pahlavi and Pazand texts has been prepared by
Dastur Hoshangji, but is not yet printed.

The Bundahish
calls itself " the Zand-akas[27]
(zand-knowing, or tradition-informed), which is first about Auhar-mazd's
original creation and the antagonism of the evil spirit, and afterwards about
the nature of the creatures from the original creation till the end, which is
the future (existence, just as it is revealed by the religion of the

Mazdayasnians. The contents of this book are too well
known to require further description; it contains about 13,000 words, but the
manuscripts do not agree either in extent or arrangement. The most complete and
best-arranged text, but not the most accurately copied, is that in the
manuscript of miscellaneous Pahlavi texts at Copenhagen, which is about five
hundred years old, and has lost one or more folios in the middle of the text of
the Bundahish but contains more sections (chaps. xxviii., xxix., xxx., and
xxxii. of Anquetil) than are found in other independent copies. The text is
found differently arranged, without those sections, but more accurately copied,
in the similar manuscript of miscellaneous texts brought from India by the author
of these Essays, and written in 1397. Most of the manuscripts in India seem to
have been copied from the latter of these two old manuscripts, but they
sometimes vary further in their arrangement. The Copenhagen text was
lithographed in facsimile and published by Westergaard in 1851; a French
translation was published by Anquetil in 1771, and German translations by
Windischmann in 1863, and by Justi in 1868.

The Minok-i
[28]khard, called in Pazand Mainyo-i khard, or Spirit of Wisdom,
consists of sixty-two answers given by the said Spirit to the inquiries of a
wise man regarding the tenets, legends, and morals of the Mazdayasnian
religion. It contains about 12,000 words, but the text ends abruptly, as if
incomplete; and its introduction bears some resemblance to that of the
Shikand-gumani, so as to lead to the suspicion that it may be the first portion
of the Dinkhard consulted by the author of that work. An old manuscript of the
Pahlavi text was brought by Westergaard from Persia, but the Pahlavi versions
in India are probably merely translations from the better-known Pazand text
which generally alternates with Neryosangh's Sanskrit translation; a manuscript
of this Pazand-Sanskrit text, written in A.D. 1520, is preserved in the India
Office Library in London. A few fragments of the Pazand text were published,
with a German translation, by Spiegel in his "Grammar of the Parsi
Language" (1851) and his "Traditional Literature of the Parsis"
(1860); and the whole text, both Pazand and Sanskrit, was published by West,
with an English translation, in 1871.

The Shayast
la-shayast, or Pahlavi Rivayat, contains about 10,000 words, and treats, of
sins and good works, the proper treatment of corpses and other kinds of
impurity, with the proper modes of purification, the proper use of the sacred
thread and shirt, other customs and rites, with the reasons for reciting each
of the Gathas, and details of the extent of those hymns; all subjects which are
generally explained in the Persian Rivayats; but here the statements are enforced
by quotations of the opinions of several of the old commentators, and by
references to some of the Nasks no longer extant. The oldest extant copies of
this work are contained in the two manuscripts of miscellaneous Pahlavi texts,
written about five hundred years ago, which have been already mentioned. In
these manuscripts the text appears in two detached portions of about 7500 and
2500 words respectively.

The Arda[29]
Viraf namak; or book of Arda Viraf, contains about 8800 words, and
describes what was seen by a chosen high-priest in a vision of the other world,
where he was shown the rewards of the righteous, the punishments of the wicked,
and the neutral state of stationary expectation of those who belong to neither
extreme. It is stated in this work that Arda Viraf was called Nikhshapur by
some; this is not only the name of a town, but is also that of one of the old
commentators, sometimes quoted in the Pahlavi Vendidad, and very often in the
Nirangistan; it is possible, therefore, that this commentator may have written
the book of Arda Viraf. Copies of this text are found in the two old
manuscripts of miscellaneous texts written about five hundred years ago, which
have been already mentioned. A manuscript of a Pazand and Sanskrit version,
written A.D. 1410, was also brought from India by the author of these Essays;
and Persian versions, both in prose and verse, are likewise extant. The Pahlavi
text was printed at Stuttgart, and published, with an English translation, in
1872.

The
Madigan-i Gosht-i Fryano, of about 3,000 words, is a tale of the
evil Akhtya of the Aban Yasht (81-83), propounding thirty-three enigmas to
Yoishto-yo-Fryananam, to be solved on pain of death; after this is done he has
to solve three enigmas in his turn, but fails and is destroyed. The enigmas are
generally of a very trivial character, and nine of them seem to be omitted.
This text accompanies that of the book of Arda Viraf in the two old manuscripts
before mentioned, and was published with it in 1872.

The Bahman
yasht, of about 4,200 words, professes to be a revelation from Auharmazd to
Zaratusht of the sufferings and triumphs of the Mazdayasnian religion, from his
time to the end of the world, apparently in imitation of part of the Sudkar
Nask. As it mentions the Musalman, and gives many details of the sufferings
occasioned by them, it must have been written a considerable time after the
Mohammedan conquest. It details how the power of the Mazdayasnian religion is
to be restored by the victories of Vahiram-i Varjavand, a prince (kai) of the
Kayan race, who at the age of thirty is to put himself at the head of Indian
and Chinese armies, whose power will be felt as far as the banks of the Indus,
which is called the country of Bambo. Foreigners should be careful not to
confound this namewith Bombay, which is merely a European corruption,
through the Portuguese, of Mumbai; a corruption which native writers still
avoid when writing in the vernacular languages. The Pahlavi text of this work
is found in the old manuscript of miscellaneous texts at Copenhagen, and its
two copies, one of which is at Paris, but no other copies have been met with; a
Pazand version is, however, common in India. Spiegel has given a German
translation of extracts from the Bahman Yasht in his "Traditional
Literature of the Parsis."

In the
same old manuscript at Copenhagen is the Andarj-i Hudavar-i [30]1
danak, containing about 1800 words, of which one-third have been lost, as two
folios are missing. This admonition (andarj) is given in reply to
questions asked by his disciple (ashakard). No other copy of this work
has been met with, but it will be found, of course, in the two copies of the
Copenhagen manuscript.

In the
same inanuscript is also a copy of the Madigan-I gujastak Abalish, containing
about 1200 words. The accursed Abalish appears to have been a zandik or
heretic, who relied upon later corrupt traditions in preference to the true
faith. In the presence of Mamun, the commander of the faithful (amir-i muminin)
at Baghdad, he proposes seven questions to a Mobad, who replies to the
satisfaction of Mamun and the confusion of Abalish himself. The writer
concludes by blessing Adarfrobag-i Farukhzadan (the author of an old edition of
the Dinkard) for having destroyed Abalish; and he could not have written this
work before A.D. 830, as Mamun was living at that time. Many copies of it exist
in Pahlavi, Pazand, and Persian.

The Jamasp
namak consists of Jamasp's replies to King Gushtasp's questions regarding
creation, history, customs of various nations, and the future fate of the
religion. The most complete manuscript examined contains about 5,000 but seems
unfinished. The Pahlavi text is rare. A Dastur Peshotanji's library in words. A
very old manuscript in Dastur Bombay contains about one-fourth of the
text, but no other copy has been met with. The Pazand and Persian versions are
found in many manuscripts.

A very old
manuscript in the library of Dastur Jamaspji in Bombay has been called the Pahlavi
Shahnamak, as it contains several short tales connected with the kings of
Persia. Its colophon states that it was finished in India, in the town of
Tanak,[31]
on the 19th day of some month A.Y. 691 (A.D. 1322), by Mihirapan Kai-Khusro,
the copyist who wrote the oldest manuscripts of the Yasna and Vendidad that are
still extant. The handwriting, however, more nearly resembles that of the old
manuscript of miscellaneous texts at Copenhagen, which contains several copies
of Mihirapan's writing , with his colophons attached; so that the Pahlavi
Shahnamak may also be a copy of his manuscript, but, like that at Copenhagen,
it is certainly about five hundred years old. This manuscript is much
worm-eaten, but a copy of it exists at Teheran, made one hundred and ten years
ago before the original was much damaged, which will probably supply most of
the deficiencies in those texts of which no other copies are known to exist.

Of the texts contained in this old
manuscript and its single complete copy, the following are not known to exist
elsewhere in Pahlavi: - (1.) Yadkar-i Zar iran, of about 3000 words, containing
an account of the war between King Vishtasp and Arjasp. (2.) Cities of the
Land of Iran, about 880 words, giving their names and a very brief account
of each. (3.) Wonders and Prodigies of the Land of Sistan, in
about 290 words. (4.) Khusro-i Kavadan (Noshiravan) and the Slave-boy, who
replies to the king's thirteen inquiries as to what things are the most
pleasant, about 1770 words. (5.) Admonitions to Mazdayasnians in six
separate paragraphs, about 940 words. (6.) Andarj-IKhusro-i Kavadan (Noshiravan),
about 380 words, said to contain the dying injunctions of that monarch. (7.)
Sayings of Adarfrobag-i Farukhzadan and Bakht-afrid, about 320 words. The
following texts, contained in this old manuscript, are also found in Dastur
Peshotanji’s old manuscript, which has been already mentioned as containing
part of the Jamasp-namak ; but they are not known to exist elsewhere in
Pahlavi: -(1.) Madigan-i si roz,
about 460 words, is a statement of what ought to be done on each of the thirty
days of the month; at the end it is called an admonition (andarj) of
Adarpad-i Maraspendan to his son, which leads one to suspect that it may be a
detached portion of his
Pandndmak. (2.) Dirakht-i Asurik, about 800 words, is a debate between a
tree and a goat as to which of them is the more worthy. (3.) Chatrang namak,
about 820 words, relates how a chessboard and chessmen were sent by
Devasarm, a great king of India, to Khusro-I Anoshak-ruban (Noshiravan), with a
request for an explanation of the game, which was given by Vajurg-mihir-I
Bukhtakan, who afterwards takes the game of Niv-Ardashir to India, as an
effectual puzzle for the Indian sages. (4.) Injunctions given to men
of the good religion, about 800 words. (5.) The Five Dispositions of
priests, and Ten Admonitions, about 250 words, which also occur in the
Vajarkard-i-dini (pp. 13-16 of Dastur Peshotanji’s edition). (6.) Daruk-i
khursandi, about 120 words. (7.) Anecdote of King Vahiram-i Varjavand,
about I 90 words. (8.) Advice of a certain man (fulan gabra), about 740 words.
Of the following texts contained in the two old manuscripts of Dastur
Peshotanji and. Dastur Jamaspji, a third copy exists in the library of the
latter Dastur: - (1.) Forms of Letters to kings and great men, about 990
words found also in the vajarkard-i-dini (pp. 102-113 of Dastur Peshotanji’s
edition). (2.) Form of Marriage Contract, dated A.Y. 627 (A.D.
1258), about 400 words. (3.) Vachak aechand (some sayings) of Adarpad-i
Maraspendan, about 1270words. (4.) Stayishn-i dron va sipasdari-I
myazdpan, about 560 words.

Of the
following texts contained in Dastur Jamaspji's old manuscript many copies exist
:- (1.) Pandnamak-I Zaratusht, about 1430 words, contains
admonitions as to man’s duties. A copy of three-fourths of this text exists in
the University Library at Copenhagen. (2.) Andarj-I Adarpad-i Maraspendan, about
1700 words, is sometimes called his Pandnamak, and contains his advice to his
son Zartusht; but the last quarter of the text is missing in the old
manuscript, and the end is very abrupt in other manuscripts, which makes it
probable that the next text in the old manuscript, the Madigan-i si roz
may have been originally the conclusion of this, as has been already noticed.
This Pahlavi text was printed in Bombay, and published, with a Gujrati
translation, by Shahryarji Dadabhai in 1869 ; and an English version of this
Gujrati translation, by the Rev. Shapurji Edalji, was published in 1870, but
being a translation of a translation, it differs considerably from the meaning
of the original. (3.) Kar-namak-i Artakhshir-i Papakan, about 5600
words, records many of the actions of King Ardashir and his son Shahpuhar,
beginning with the discovery of Sasan, the father of the former, among the
shepherds of Papak, and ending with Auharmazd, the son of the latter, ascending
the throne; but this is not the original work, as it begins with the phrase, In
the Karnamak of Artakhshfr-i Papakan it was 'thus written.’ A Gujrati
translation of this text was published by Dastur Peshotanji in 1853. (4.)
Pand-namak-i Vajurg-mihir-i Bukhtakan, the prime minister of King Khusro
Noshirvan, contains about 1690 words, but seems to be merely a fragment of the
work, as it ends very abruptly. This text is also called the Ganj-i shigan,
because it states that it was placed in the royal treasury (ganj-i shahakan in
the old manuscript).

The
other old manuscript in Dastur Peshotanji’s library, which includes some of the
above mentioned texts, likewise contains the following :- (1.) Madigan-i si
yazadan about 80 Words, stating the one special quality of each of
the thirty Pazads who give their names to the days of the month. Another
similar statement, in the old manuscript of miscellaneous texts brought from
India by the author of these Essays, specifies different qualities in most
cases. (2.) Madigan-i mah Farvardinroji-i Horvadad, about 760
words, which details all the remarkable occurrences said to have taken place,
at different periods, on the sixth day of the first month of the Parsi year. A
Persian version of this text is found in the Rivayats. (3.) Another Madigan-I
si roz, about 1150 words, detailing the proper business and duties for each
of the thirty days in the Parsi month and the five Gatha days at the end of the
Parsi year. This text is also contained in the Vajarkard-i Dini (pp.113-125 of
Dastur Peshotanji’s edition).

Copies of the
remaining texts are numerous both in Pahlavi and Pazand. The Madigan-i haft
Ameshaspend about 990 words contains a detail of the various duties of the
seven Ameshbspends, as revealed by Auharmazd to Zaratusht. The Andarji danak
mard, about 520 words, details the advice of a wise man to his son.

The, about
1300 words is the glossary of Huzvarish and P&and edited by ‘Dastur
Hoshangji and published in 1870. It is called the Mariknamak-i Asurik or
Assyrian vocabulary, by Dastur Peshotanji in the list of Pahlavi works given in
the introduction to his Pahlavi Grammar; but Che origin of this name requires
explanation, as it appears to be unknown to the Dasturs generally.

The Patit-i
Adarpad-i Maraspend, about 1490 words is a form of renunciation of every
possible heinous sin, to be recited by the sinner. The Patit-i khud about
1000 words, is a similar form of renunciation, but somewhat abbreviated. Avar
chim-i dron, about 380 words, regarding the symbolism of the, ceremonial
wafer-cakes and the use of them in the myazd, or sacred feast. The Pahlaviashirvad, or marriage blessing, about 460 words. The Nam-stayishni,
or praise of Ahuramazd, about 260 words. The Afrin-I “tu peshgah-I khada,”
so called from its first prayer, which has not been examined.

APahlavi
version of the Saddar Bundahish is also said to exist, but must be a
modern translation, for the Saddar itself although often written in Avesta
characters, seems to bi rather Persian than Pazand, as it contains many Arabic
words. Dastur Peshotanji mentions a few more Pahlavi texts, some of which may
be included among those described above, but under different names. There are
also several Persian texts, such as the book of Dadar bin Dad-dukht, &c.,
which may have originated in Pahlavi.

From the
above details we may form some idea of the probable extent of the scanty
remnants of Pahlavi literature. Without making any allowance for works, which
remain unexamined or have escaped observation, it appears that the extant
Pahlavi translations from the Avesta exceed 104,000 words, and the other
Pahlavi works exceed 413,000 words, making a total of upwards of 517,000 words
in all the extant Pahlavi writings, which have been examined. This total is
nearly eleven times the extent of the Pahlavi Vendidad, or forty times that of
the Bundahish.

The Parsi
community has been doing a good deal, of late years, for the preservation of
the last remnants of their national literature, but it would be better if their
efforts were of a more systematic character. Before much more is done for
encouraging the publication of isolated texts, a systematic inquiry for
manuscripts should be set on foot, for the purpose of ascertaining which are
the oldest and best manuscripts, so as to avoid the error of editing texts
without reference to the best materials. Influential members of the Parsi
community, assisted by the Dasturs, ought to have but little difficulty in
inducing all possessors of manuscripts to supply a properly organised
committee. Such catalogues need only be lists of the names of the works, with
the names and dates of the copyists when these are recorded; but all undated
manuscripts supposed to be more than a century old should be specially noted.
From such lists the committee could easily prepare a statement of all extant
texts and of the owners of several of the more valuable manuscripts of each
text. Possessed of this information, the next step would be to obtain a copy of
the oldest manuscript of each text, beginning with the rarest works, and have
it collated with one or two of the next oldest manuscripts (not being copies of
the first). These collated copies, if correctly made without any attempt at
emendation, would form standard editions of the texts, and should be
carefully preserved in some public institution accessible to all members of the
Parsi community, such as the Mulla Firuz Library.

It can hardly be expected that Westergaard’s edition of
the Avesta texts can be much improved from any manuscripts to be found in
India; although copies from Yazd or Kirman, in Persia, might afford valuable
emendations coming from an independent source, but it is generally understood
in India that there are very few such manuscripts still existing in Persia.
Justi's Old-Bactrian Dictionary is a tolerably complete collection of the
Avesta words, but requires to be supplemented by the addition of many words
contained in the Nirangistan, Farhang-i oim khaduk, and Aogemadaecha; and the
meanings attached to the words want careful revision.

With
regard to Pahlavi texts, it would be important to discover any Pahlavi Vendidad
or Yasna descended from any other source than the manuscripts of Mihirapan
Kai-Khusro, also to find the first three fargards, missing from his manuscripts
in Europe, in his own handwriting. The first two books of the Dinkard, the
Pahlavi text of the latter part of the shikand-gumani, chaps. xxviii.-xxx. Of
the Bundahish, and a complete Pahlavi version of the Jamasp-namak, are all
desiderata regarding which some information might be obtained by a systematic
inquiry for manuscripts. Hitherto the Parsis have had to rely upon Europeans
for all explanations of their literature, beyond the merely traditional
learning of their priesthood; they may always rely upon some European being
ready to carry on such investigations, provided the materials be forthcoming;
and Europeans, in their turn, ought to be able to rely on the Parsis for the
discovery of all existing materials, and for rendering them accessible.

[1]In Sayyid Hussain Shah Hakikat's Persian grammar,
entitled Tuhfatu'Ajam, there are seven Iranian languages enumerated,
which are classed under two heads, vie. (a) The obsolete or dead, and (b) such
dialects as are still used. Of the obsolete he knows four: sughdi, the
language of ancient Sogdiana (Sughdha in the Zend-Avesta); Zauli (for
Zâbulî), dialect of Zâbulistân; Sakzî, spoken in Sajastan
(called Sakastene by the Greeks); and Hiriwi, spoken in Herat (Haroyu
in the Zend-Avesta). As languages in use he mentions Parsi, which,
he says, was spoken in Istakhar (Persepolis), ancient capital of Persia; then Darî,
or language of the court, according to this writer, spoken at Balkh, Bokhara,
Marv and in Badakhshân; and Pahlavi, or Pahlavâni, the language of the
so-called Pahlav, comprising the districts of Rai (Ragha in the
Zend-Avesta), Isphahan, and Dînũr. Darî he calls the language of
Firdausi, but the trifling deviations he mentions to prove the difference
between Darî and Pârsî (for instance, ashkam, “belly,”
used in Darî for shikam, and abâ, "with," for bâ),
refer only to slight changes in spelling, and are utterly insufficient to
induce a philologist to consider Darî the an idiom different from Pârsî.

[2]This is
distinct from the usual Sanskrit, which alone is studied nowadays by the
Brahmans. The most learned Pandits of the present Brahmanic community, who are
perfectly acquainted with the classical Sanskrit language, are utterly unable
to explain the more ancient portions of the Vedas, which consist chiefly of
hymns, and speculations on the meaning of ceremonies, their effects, &c.
They learn them parrot-like by heart, but care nothing about understanding
their prayers. If they are asked to explain the meaning, they refer to a
commentary made several hundred years ago by a highly celebrated Brahman
(Sayana), which often fads to give a complete insight into Vedic antiquity.

[3]The Sanskrit vowel ri is always
represented by are or ere; rit itself in a corruption of art.

[4]In the Vedic dialect eleven such forms
can be found, which are reduced to one in classical Sanskrit.

[5]Spelt as pronounced, sh representing
the palatal sibilant, and sh the cerebral sibilant.

[6]One must
not, however, lose sight of the fact that a language is not made by
grammarians, but by the common people whom they despise, The work of
grammarians is merely to take the language as they find it, and try to
ascertain what rules they can manufactures to account for the various forms and
idioms used by the people around them. So long as such rules are laid down
merely as explanations of existing facts, they will be useful to the scholar,
and will not impede progress; but once let them be enunciated as inflexible
laws, unalterable as those of the Medes and Persians, and then they hinder
progress, ossify thought, and stop discovery. Grammar is no exception to the
general rule that lams are hurtful unless subject to constant revision; for a
law that cannot be altered becomes a dogma, an impediment to discussion,
progress, and improvement, whether it be grammatical, medical, legal,
scientific, social, or religious. Whether the stoppage of Hindu progress in
knowledge beyond a certain point is not due to the excessive systematizing
adopted by their writers when they approached that point is a matter worth
consideration. Arrived at a certain amount of progress, they ceased to look
forward, but contented themselves with surveying and arranging what they
already knew.

[7]“In the Kârnâmah of Artakhshîr-i Pâpakân it was
written that after the death of Alexander of Rum, there were 240 small
rulers of the country of Airan. The warriors of Fars and the borders adjacent
to it were in the hands of a chieftain of Ardavan. Papak was governor and
sovereign of Fars, and was appointed by Ardavan.” Karnamak-i A.P.

[8] The only exceptions extant seem to
be a few Semitic plurals in -in found in the Chaldaeo-Pahlavi
inscriptions before mentioned (p. 82); but even these are used in phrases of
Iranian construction.

[9]The syllable
man, is represented by a single letter in both characters, which evidently
corresponds with the common Pahlavi termination man, as we find it here in the
common Pahlavi words zenman (= denman), barman, ragelman, valman,
tamman, homan, lanman, and yadman, as well as in the uncommon forms qadmatman,
qadmatman, atarman, and panman. In tamman the syllable man
corresponds to man in Chaldae, but in other words we must suppose it to
represent an original van, vain, or an. Thomas reads the letter i,
because it resembles i in some old alphabets. For a similar reason
Adreas reads it a. Thomas points to the correspondence of barman, in one dialect
of our teat, with bari in the other. Adreas points to a similar correspondence
of yadman with yada; he also shows that the reading a
overcomes many etymological difficulties. We adhere to the traditional man on
the authority of the Chaldee tamman, and because we do not see why there
should be a second a in the alphabet.

[10]Adreas reads this word lechad, as the hispeculiarly
formed, and may perhaps represent the letter tsade, or chin
Pahlavi

[11]The form of the word is plural, we adhere to the
but used probably for the singular.

[12] A few
exceptions to this general rule, besides unintentional omissions, may be
discovered, especially in manuscripts from Persia.

[13]Derived from other works, as no version of the Kârnamak by Neryosangh is known.

[14]A doubtful word, and pashemani no
difference between these words in is merelya guess.

[15]All MSS have kardano min, and no
doubt some old copyist has read vaduntano (= kardan) instead of vakhduntano
(= griftan), there being.

[17]So in all MSS., but the text is either corrupt, or
the construction peculiar.

[18] In
estimating (more or less accurately) the number of words in each of the works
he has examined, as the best standard of their length, the editor has not
included the conjunction va and idhafat i; and he has counted compounds
as either one or two words according to the usual mode of writing them.

[19] He copied
the Arda-Viraf namak in A.Y. 618 (A.D. 1249), and had visited Persia.

[20] The descent
of manuscripts can generally be traced by their copying errors, which have been
insufficiently erased; or by their misreading ill shaped letters; but it is
hazardous to such blunder.

[21] The total
number of sections is given as 133; so there must be an error of one in some
one of these four numbers

[23]These dates no longer exist in the manuscript
brought from Persia, but are taken from the copies and from the account given
by Mulla Firuz in his Avijeh-Din.

[24]Altered to 250 in the old manuscript written by
Marjpan Fredun, but whether the alteration was made by the original writer or
not is uncertain.

[25] They had
probably something to do with the dislike of Eastern nations to any absolute
alienation of family property; a feeling, which led even the Jews to adopt
stringent exceptional marriage laws, in case of a failure in direct heirs.

[26] The Mulla
Firuz library in Bombay contains two modern Persian manuscripts, named
respectively Dinkard and Dinkhird; these were written by Mulla Firuz to
describe his voyage to Persia and the answers he obtained to seventy-eight
questions Proposed by the Indian Dasturs. These Persian works must not be
confounded with their namesakes in Pahlavi.

[27]The word min, “from,” with which many of the
manuscripts commence, appears to be a later addition, as it is not found in the
Copenhagen manuscript, and has evidently been added by a later hand in the only
other manuscript of equal age mentioned in the text.

[28]This word, which is traditionally rend madonad,
has been pronounced minavad, or mainivad, and traced to a supposed
ancient Persian form, mainivat. Whether such a form actually existed is not
known and if it did, we should expect to find its final letter represented by d
= t in Pahlavi, and not by d. On the other hand, the Persian min o
must have been minok in Pahlavi; this would be liable to be written minog,
and the addition of circumflexes (all the uses of which, in Pahlavi, are not
thoroughly understood) changes this word into the traditional madonad.

[29]Sometimes written Ardai, which should
perhaps be read Ardak having been altered into ardag, which is
not distinguishable from ardai. It is no doubt merely a title meaning
"righteous;" the Parsis say, however, that it is also a name.